How was it not targetting/penalty on J. Williams?

I'm asking because I really didn't understand that call. When Javonte Williams used his helmet (for helmet to helmet contact) as well as the hands to the face on the big Michael Carter run in the 4th quarter, how was that not targeting? Had the defensive player done the same thing to a WR, he would have been thrown out of the game.

I think that was the biggest call of the game. Had Williams been thrown out of the game for the rest of the 4th quarter, and they got a 15-yard penalty on that play, instead of a 40 yard gain, I think we would have held them and they would have had to punt. There were 3 or 4 other first downs that Williams got for them in the 4th quarter, that I don't think Carter would have gotten. Without that call, I think we are in OT or driving at the end to win the game.

Howell was awesome today, and our defense was not good. But that call decided the game. I think the refs blew it. Please explain why I'm wrong. I'd love to hear it.

I don’t think it would have mattered by that point (we were leaking oil badly - I’m sure they could have converted a 1st and 25) - but agree with you. Let with helmet. Helmet to helmet. Jacques wasn’t looking so i would say defenseless. What else could it possibly be?

I think it was the right call. He didn't really lower his head or launch himself into the block. I don't think Jacques saw him, but it was a straight on block, not a blindside.

IamThunderbolt said:

I think it was the right call. He didn't really lower his head or launch himself into the block. I don't think Jacques saw him, but it was a straight on block, not a blindside.

Click to expand...

Yep.

IamThunderbolt said:

I think it was the right call. He didn't really lower his head or launch himself into the block. I don't think Jacques saw him, but it was a straight on block, not a blindside.

Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Clear targeting, IMO. Look at the rule

I have. Targeting involved making forcible contact that goes beyond making a legal tackle or block. Indicators of targeting include:
- launching - leaving one's feet with an upward or forward thrust
- a crouch followed by an upward or forward thrust
- lowering the head and initiating contact with the crown of the helmet.
- leading with the helmet to attack with faceable contact to the head or neck area

If it were reversed and one of our backs had been tossed for that block, I would have been livid.

You left out quite a bit (like #2 can apply even if both feet are on the ground) but #3 and (CLEARLY) #4 apply. And the most important thing you left out: “when in doubt, it is a foul”

Go back and look at the play: helmet to helmet, wake player’s head snaps back, then UNC player stares him down for good measure. I really do not think it’s close.

I can understand being livid about that call, but it seems like it was either initiating contact with the helmet or illegal contact to the head (in the event that you would claim he led with his hand to the face). So how was it not at least a penalty?

I think it was a blown call for their not being an illegal hands to the face call, followed by an arguable targeting call (which probably would have been called against us had the situation been reversed).

I didn’t know that targeting could be called on a non-blindside block. Now I don’t think it ever will be called, because that was the definition of it imho.

But does anyone disagree it should have been a penalty?

The fact that he lifted his head/helmet to hit the bottom of Jacquez is what convinced me it fit #4.

Also on the big run when Boogie was right at the back the replay showed the OLineman holding his hips from behind. Thought that was holding.

MikeDeac said:

Also on the big run when Boogie was right at the back the replay showed the OLineman holding his hips from behind. Thought that was holding.

Click to expand...

You're talking about the Howell scramble for the first down on 3rd and long (not the designed QB draw)? If so, my UNC buddy said the same thing while the play was going on. Boogie had Howell dead to rights, and that tug from behind allowed enough room for him to escape. Boogie still needs to make that play, but it was a blatant penalty.

MrBojangles said:

I can understand being livid about that call, but it seems like it was either initiating contact with the helmet or illegal contact to the head (in the event that you would claim he led with his hand to the face). So how was it not at least a penalty?

I think it was a blown call for their not being an illegal hands to the face call, followed by an arguable targeting call (which probably would have been called against us had the situation been reversed).

Click to expand...

If you guys want to have blockers thrown out for targeting on helmet to helmet, you will be throwing out every single linemen in the entire game of football. You would also be throwing out every single running back who lowers his head as a battering ram when he bowls people over or goes thru the line. That is simply not what the rule is there for. It is there for protecting a defenseless player who is usually the ball carrier who can't protect himself and gets hit when the would be tackler lowers his head and leads with the crown of the helmet. Simple as that. Williams just got hit by a crunching block.